So opinion is now that we should take a cycling proficiency test before a driving test?

They're not compulsory so how is it an argument?

Regarding my theory that old duffers are far more of a problem than cyclists I would like to draw attention to electric scooters being driven by those mad enough to use an A road without any means to survive the pace and demands of the British road system. They are a menace and illegal and get on my ####.

The number of people driving with a disability that prevents them for passing a cycling test is , I suggest, very small. In any case, it is not they in my opinion that teararse around our streets knocking cyclists off their bikes.

Good i am glad it is.

In 2011 there were 25, 023 people killed or seriously injured on our roads. That is 68 people a day. How much are we prepared to pay to see that carnage drastically reduced? Stiffer driving test? Retest for high-accident groups - every 2 years up to age 25, every 5 years up to 50, every ten years there after? Huge cost. It is my contention that my making everyone pass a bike test, it will ensure a fitter, more alert,more capable more patient and more aware group of drivers. And if you fail? well, that's one more potentially bad drive of the roads!

Retesting will never, ever happen.A few reason for you.People will put on a show. They will not drive how they normally do. Also it really is not a vote winner.

Can you please provide some/any proof to back you idea that passing a bike test will make people better drivers?

One thing to think about.Maybe the people wanting to ride bikes had to take a test before being allowed to ride on the road. Maybe that would go along way to reducing the amount that get hurt.

This is Transport for London quoted in the Guardian talking about car/bike collisions: Astonishingly, their figures showthat in accidents were a cyclist was killed or badly hurt the cyclist was presumed to have committed an offence in just 6% of cases. The vehicle driver was assumed to have done so 56% of the time while 39% of the time it wasn't clear

So in less than 1 in 10 cases are cyclists hurt because they are cycling dangerously or carelessly but in more than half it's the driver's fault. Even if the unknown 39% are all cyclists' fault they're still outnumbered by driver naughtiness.

Reducing the 56% would be more useful than reducing the 6% and would probably save a few pedestrian lives - and prevent injuries to car users etc - along the way.

This is Transport for London quoted in the Guardian talking about car/bike collisions: Astonishingly, their figures showthat in accidents were a cyclist was killed or badly hurt the cyclist was presumed to have committed an offence in just 6% of cases. The vehicle driver was assumed to have done so 56% of the time while 39% of the time it wasn't clear

So in less than 1 in 10 cases are cyclists hurt because they are cycling dangerously or carelessly but in more than half it's the driver's fault. Even if the unknown 39% are all cyclists' fault they're still outnumbered by driver naughtiness.

Reducing the 56% would be more useful than reducing the 6% and would probably save a few pedestrian lives - and prevent injuries to car users etc - along the way.

So let me get the straight. Are you saying that some form of training/test for cyclists is a bad idea?

By far the best road use training I have ever received was the instruction I took prior to taking my motorbike test. It was basically all about self-preservation and avoiding putting yourself in danger from the other (car, bus wagon etc) road users and pedestrians.

The two main rules were:

everyone else is a complete idiot and a threat to your safety.

You, unless you concentrate fully and make very, very sure that you communicate your every move to other road users are an idiot and a threat to your safety.

IMO, the same applies to peddle bikes, only without the power to accelerate away from trouble if that is your only escape option.

"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

By far the best road use training I have ever received was the instruction I took prior to taking my motorbike test. It was basically all about self-preservation and avoiding putting yourself in danger from the other (car, bus wagon etc) road users and pedestrians.

The two main rules were:

everyone else is a complete idiot and a threat to your safety.

You, unless you concentrate fully and make very, very sure that you communicate your every move to other road users are an idiot and a threat to your safety.

IMO, the same applies to peddle bikes, only without the power to accelerate away from trouble if that is your only escape option.

You, unless you concentrate fully and make very, very sure that you communicate your every move to other road users are an idiot and a threat to your safety.

That's basically what I learnt on bikeability.

The difficulty is what I imagine some people think happens is cyclists get taught to ride discretely and never put themselves in front of cars etc whereas what actually happens is you get told that you're at your safest when you're most assertive, that the middle of the lane is much, much better than the gutter, to try and get to the front of traffic at junctions rather than be 'lost' in the mix, that jumping red lights is bad and naughty, hand signals are useful but work best with eye contact ... and that everybody else on the road hates you and is an idiot.

By far the best road use training I have ever received was the instruction I took prior to taking my motorbike test. It was basically all about self-preservation and avoiding putting yourself in danger from the other (car, bus wagon etc) road users and pedestrians.

The two main rules were:

everyone else is a complete idiot and a threat to your safety.

You, unless you concentrate fully and make very, very sure that you communicate your every move to other road users are an idiot and a threat to your safety.

IMO, the same applies to peddle bikes, only without the power to accelerate away from trouble if that is your only escape option.

Retesting will never, ever happen.A few reason for you.People will put on a show. They will not drive how they normally do. Also it really is not a vote winner.

Can you please provide some/any proof to back you idea that passing a bike test will make people better drivers?

Of course, re-testing would be too expensive. However, given that people would put on a show for a retest, what is to stop them putting on a show at the original test? That is why the test itself sholuld be more difficult. Maybe a tow part test, with a 2 year gap in between.

No proof required. It's matter of principle. One result will be to reduce the number of people who qualify for a provisional licence and that in itself will make our roads safer.

In addition, yes, I'd make training a pre-requisite for cyclists, too. But in order not to discourage cycling those who don't pass would only be able to ride on the pavements, where they would be much safer in any case.